Sorry Chris I should have explained that in a better way.
I meant the software component in a server that receives a request for a particular resource, and which determines the returned response, including the returned Tk header. A particular handler may be responsible for a single resource or many of them and may be designed to operate in a first-party or a third-party context . My TPE suggestion before this one (issue-182) was for a way for it to determine in-line which context should apply (without necessarily needing access to out-of-band state).
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Pedigo [mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org]
Sent: 22 October 2012 14:36
To: Tracking Protection Working Group
Subject: RE: tracking-ISSUE-183 (Tk E ): Additional Tk header status value for EU [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
Mike, pardon the basic question, what do you mean by "resource handler?"
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:28 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: tracking-ISSUE-183 (Tk E ): Additional Tk header status value for EU [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
tracking-ISSUE-183 (Tk E ): Additional Tk header status value for EU [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/183
Raised by: Mike O'Neill
On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
In Europe and other jurisdictions the requirement will probably be that resource handlers accessed in a first-party context conform as a third-party.
In these cases resource handlers could place a Tk header in the response with a status of 3 “The designated resource is designed for use within a third-party context and conforms to the requirements on a third party”, but the value and the text are confusing in this situation. Even though the overwhelming majority of these resource handlers will have been designed for use in a first-party context the Tk response they emit portrays them as third-party.
This could cause confusion for implementers, leading to a loss of interoperability.
It might be better to insert a new single character status value ( in paragraph 5.2) for this situation for instance:
E The designated resource may be designed for use in a first-party context but conforms to the requirements on a third party.
This is functionally similar to the 3 response but be more appropriate for the majority case in these jurisdictions.